How Not to Be a Trademark Bully

I've posted before about the way that many companies overreact to parody, trademark infringement and other "threats" to their brands.  So I'm delighted to pass along this rare counter-example, courtesy of Popehat.

Proof that some companies can look at the big picture while still providing (appropriate) attention to IP issues.

The Empty Threats of Trademark Bullying

Two instructive examples of trademark bullying this week:

The first comes from, of all people, the organizers of the South By Southwest music festival. Lawyers for SXSW sent a cease and desist letter to the makers of "lastsx.sw", an app designed to help users track down bands they'd like to hear at the festival.  

The second comes from serial trademark abuser Louis Vuitton group, which via its lawyers snottily objected to the marketing materials prepared by an intellectual property group at the University of Pennsylvania law school for a symposium on "fashion law."  Here's the (rather cleverly-done) piece that produced so many wadded panties at LVG legal:

The reactions of each group to this bullying will tell you a little bit about what's really behind these threats.  The young tech guys behind the app caved; Penn Law School sent back a sharply-written reply to LVG that might be loosely translated as "get bent."

This difference comes not only from the fact that Penn Law School is a) amply able to defend itself and b) full-to-bursting with lawyers, but also from a little secret good lawyers know:  that the vast majority of the time, threats like this are nothing more than empty bluster.  The attorneys writing these frothing missives have no intention of making good on them.  

Or to put in the parlance of the home of SXSW - they're all hat and no cattle.  They just want to scare you, to intimidate you into agreeing to their demands.  In the case of lastsx.sw, mission accomplished.

Most good attorneys I know will rarely send threatening letters.  They reserve them only for cases where there IS a real issue, and they and their client fully intend to follow through with a lawsuit.  Or they'll just file the lawsuit and then make their demand.  Unfortunately, there are many attorneys out there who can't control their clients, or who value the billable opportunity more highly than the overall outcome to their client, or who have found that the return on their empty threats is good enough to justify the cost to their reputations.

In my business, I deal with bullying attempts like this on a near-daily basis.  I've been threatened with a lawsuit over 300 times in the last few years. I've had claims made that ignore the First Amendment or other laws. Claims that flat-out make laws up. Claims of butthurt masquerading as defamation.  And claims, like these two, that argue for outrageous extensions of copyright or trademark law. 

I've denied every single one of them. Every attorney who wanted a profile, client review or rating removed and threatened a lawsuit to get this result got the same answer: No. 

How many of them sued after getting this disappointing answer? Zero.

Some attorneys just can't help but try to throw their weight around. But that doesn't mean you need to take them seriously when you're operating within your rights.

Bethesda vs. Minecraft

It's been a while since I've posted about trademark bullying, but Christ, it seems like it's everywhere. Proctor & Gamble is fighting with a Connecticut mom over the name she's chosen for her line of soap for tween girls ("Willa") because it sounds kinda like P&G's "Wella" brand. I've got some nimrod attorney demanding "one . . . MILLION . . . dollars" for using his name on our site (it's, uh, a legal directory. Of lawyers.).

But my new favorite for sheer cluelessness is Bethesda games going after Markus Persson, the creator of Minecraft. Bethesda worries that Persson's new game, Scrolls, might be confused with Bethesda's "Elder Scrolls" line of games. Never mind that no one would ever confuse one of Bethesda's games for one of Persson's. Or that the "Elder Scrolls" is a simply a postscript to the title of each Bethesda game.

What's really appalling here is how Bethesda is letting its lawyers crush them.

Despite possessing god-awful graphics, Minecraft is popular beyond belief. Offering up an open world with no structured gameplay, it provides a level of depth and creativity not found in any other game. Millions and millions and millions of people have flocked to it. My son and his friends are obsessed with it.

By going after Persson (who goes by "Notch"), Bethesda has aligned itself against all of these millions of ardent fans. It doesn't matter if they win the court battle and get Notch to change the name of the game; they've already lost the PR battle.

And of course, they didn't need to do this. Their lawyers may have told them that they need to "defend their intellectual property." That's bunk. Walking through all of the options and the PR implications of taking this action - particularly against a small or well-loved business - has got to factor into the equation.

I was talking to a video game journalist (!!) a few weeks back who told me that many of the gaming companies are known for being ineptly run. One sure-fire way to be run ineptly is to listen too uncritically to your lawyers. We'll see how much it costs Bethesda to learn that lesson.

AP Fires First Salvo in Losing Battle

The Associated Press is taking the novel position that even minimal references to its articles require a licensing agreement with the news organization that produced the piece. By way of example, the AP noted that the use of a headline and a link would violate a news organization's copyright. This, of course, is what one sees regularly on Google News and other sites, including blogs. For example:

Gates Faults U.S. on Data Privacy and Immigration

From a business perspective, it's strange to see anyone take a position that discourages linking. Linking is the lifeblood of the web, and it's how people find your content, both directly and via the "authoritative" benefit a site gets from most links. And from a legal perspective, there's no question whatsoever that any content owner who tries to enforce copyright to prevent standard linking will lose.

What of the headlines themselves? Sure, a headline is "expression" for copyright purposes, but it's hard to see how a news source can escape a fair use argument, given that a headline is a small portion of the overall piece of journalism and doesn't create an economic substitute for someone referring to the original piece. In fact, the opposite is true. Headlines are written to attract reader interest in the article; linked headlines drive traffic from a search engine, blog, etc. back to the original source to read the full piece.

It should also be noted that news outlets have, since time immemorial, referred to each other. News organizations on the one hand create content, and on the other hand avidly rely on content created by others. How often when reading media do you see a reference like "The New York Times reported today that . . . " or "according a CNN report . . ."?

The AP, like a lot of other traditional media outlets, is flailing about as its legacy business model slowly loses air. However, it's easy to see how this particular battle will end – an overreaching lawsuit or two that leaves egg on AP's face without vindicating its position. It may also see Google show some news outlets what a world without links to their content would look like – I suspect they would quickly find that is far worse than the way things stand today.

Facebook - What Happened to the Adult Supervision?

Last year, in an attempt to address the burgeoning growth and complexity of its business, Facebook brought in some experienced senior management in the form of COO Sheryl Sandberg, VP, Communications Elliot Shrage (both Google alums) and General Counsel Ted Ullyot (Justice Dept.). Sadly, this leadership has abjectly failed Facebook in its Terms of Use imbroglio.

Last weekend, Facebook changed its TOU in certain ways that covered the more expansive ways it needs to license user content. Not to "own" user content, as many of the more hysterical voices in the blogoshere contended, but rather to reflect the many ways users distribute their content via applications and the profiles of others.

The issues raised by those objecting to the TOU changes were similarly overstated for several other reasons: First, only a vanishingly small fraction of a percent of the content on Facebook has any financial value whatsoever. Second, even with respect to that small fraction, Facebook would have no incentive for seeking to monetize it via their license. They don't have exclusive rights, it's not their core business, and they'd face a riot from users. Finally, it’s well-understood that website terms of use are only enforceable to the extent they are reasonable. It's silly for people to take strained and aggressive readings of TOUs and argue that the companies involved would evetake those positions. Their lawyers are smart enough to know that courts won't accept overly-broad or unreasonable interpretations of TOUs.

So, the TOU changes: The problem is that, for a complicated web service like Facebook, it’s really hard to draft website terms of use that are both clear and cover all of the situations the company needs to cover. It takes a lot more time, just as it’s harder to write a short, concise letter than a long one. Sure, Facebook could devote the time and legal resources to making their TOU both a model of lay-person clarity and legal coverage, but – this blogosphere dust-up notwithstanding – the ROI on doing that is very low. Even a well-funded startup like Facebook has bigger issues its counsel should be focused on.

I thought Facebook had this all figured out and had made their TOU changes understanding that they would meet with some complaints. After all, Google faced similar issues last year when it made TOU changes as part of the Chrome browser launch, and those quickly blew over.

But here's where the adult supervision broke down: Facebook has now apologized and backtracked to their old TOU. What's shocking about this is the tacit acknowledgement that the company hadn't considered the tradeoff inherent in expanding their TOU this way, hadn't considered how to communicate the changes and hadn't considered the possibility of blowback. It also shows a level of pliability to a vocal minority that in't going to serve the company well should it ever go public.